APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION:
Mr. Chris Williams, Project Manager,
Basil Restoration Ltd., submitted an application to allow for an addition to
the main floor and interior alteration to his clients’ home.
Mr. Mark Wittig, owner, Basil
Restoration Ltd., and Ms. Cori Gabana, homeowner, appeared before members of
the Board of Variance.
BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS:
This property was the
subject of an appeal before
the Board on 2018 March 01. A variance was sought to allow for the
construction
of an
addition to the existing single family dwelling, observing the site yard
setback of 4.36 ft. where
a minimum side yard setback of 5.20 ft. is required.
The appeal, while not supported by this Department, was allowed by the Board.
The subject site, which
is zoned R2 Residential District, is located in the Lakeview-Mayfield
neighbourhood, where the age and condition of the single dwellings vary. This
interior lot, approximately 52.00 ft. wide and 207.00 ft. deep, fronts onto
Goodlad Street to the southeast. The subject site abuts single
family lots to the southwest and northeast. Vehicular
access to the subject site is provided via the rear lane to the northwest. The site observes a
downward slope of approximately 16.40 ft. in the south-north direction.
The subject site
contains a two storey single family dwelling, which was originally built in
1993. The applicant proposes various additions and alterations to the
dwelling, including the addition of a floor to ceiling “bump-out” in the
family room on the upper level, which was a subject of the 2018 March 01
appeal, and including an addition of a covered rear deck on the upper level,
which is the subject of this appeal.
The appeal is to vary Section
102.7(b) – Depth of Principal Building of the Zoning Bylaw from 60.00 ft. to
66.25 ft. to allow construction of an addition of a
covered rear deck to the existing single family dwelling.
The intent of the principal building
depth requirements of the Zoning Bylaw is to prevent construction of
dwellings that present long imposing walls, where the massing of the building
impacts the neighbouring properties.
According to the Building Permit
B77215 (issued in 1993), the existing dwelling observes a building depth of
60.0 ft. (which meets the building depth requirement), as measured from the front face to the posts supporting an
open deck at the rear of the dwelling.
The main body of the dwelling contributes approximately 56.00 ft. to the
overall building depth, with approximately 4.00 ft. contributed by the
existing rear deck. This rear deck overhangs further into the rear yard, by
approximately 3.67 ft., which is the permitted exclusion from building depth
calculations.
This appeal proposes to replace the
existing rear deck with a new slightly larger deck: in the same location, but
extending further into the rear yard. This increase in the deck’s depth
creates the excess building depth of 6.25 ft., as measured to the outer face
of the deck /roof overhang. Otherwise; the length of the main body of the
dwelling remains unchanged.
The new deck, approximately 30.00
ft. wide, would be partly covered with a flat roof, over its central area
approximately 11.00 ft. deep by 18.50 ft. wide in size.
Considering the relatively small
massing of the portion of the deck and roof structure that would exceed the
permitted building depth, small impacts are expected on the neighbouring
properties. The proposed re-directing of the stair down towards the northeast
deck edge, as opposed to remain in at its current configuration would also
help to lessen the visual impacts on the neighbouring property to the
northeast.
In addition, the plentiful rear yard
setback of over 114.00 ft. and the generous side yard setbacks of
approximately 17.00 ft. (southwest) and 19.00 ft. (northeast), as measured to
the covered portion of the deck, will further help mitigate massing impacts
of the additional building depth.
In conclusion, the excess 6.25 ft.
depth of the proposed deck/roof structure, although the result of a design
choice would not create an appearance
of a long imposing wall when viewed from neighbouring sites, and as such
would not contravene the intent of the Bylaw.
In view of the above,
this Department does not object to the granting of this variance.
ADJACENT OWNER’S COMMENTS:
Letters of support were received
from the owners of 7845 and 7863 Goodlad Street.
|